Everyone has
been pointing the finger for Sandra Lee's disgraceful decision to delay the
Whitianga Waterways consent. Jim Anderton now promises that he will "fix
it", but warns it might take "a few weeks". But so what, says
Jim. "Given the time they have waited so far, I don't think a few weeks
will be the end of the world". Buses full of Whitianga-ites
thronging the forecourt of Parliament to hurry things up would be , says Jim, "unhelpful". They sure would be -
to Jim!

Note that Jim
gives no guarantees; he just demands that Hopper Brothers wait another
"few weeks" for the politician to make up their minds about his
project - and that's on top of the five years and $2.5 million it's already
taken for Hoppers to navigate the Resource Management Act, and then to run up
on the shoals of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.

It's a farce,
and a disgrace - but who's really to blame?

It was not
strictly Sandra Lee's fault. After all, she was only acting under Marine Park
legislation drawn up by Nick Smith from the previous National government -
legislation that requires a Minister to take into account so-called 'spiritual
values' when considering a consent for such projects. NgatiMaru claimed that their spiritual values will be
compromised by the Waterways project, so her hands were tied, she says.

But, strictly
speaking, it was not Nick Smith's fault either. Sure, he drew up the Hauraki
Gulf Marine Park Act - and he is still enthusiastic about it - but in preparing
this Act he was only doing what was demanded of him, and only following through
what his predecessors such as Simon Upton had already begun. This legislation
was required to protect the Gulf, says Nick, and it was enthusiastically
received.

In drawing up
the Marine Park Act, Nick Smith drew upon principles already established in the
Resource Management Act. The RMA protects 'kaitiakitanga,' 'intrinsic values,'
'heritage values,' 'significant indigenous vegetation,' and the habitat of
trout and salmon. The RMA does not, however, protect your property rights; in
fact, in all its 456 pages (plus amendments) it does not even mention property
rights! On behalf of all New Zealanders, and future generations of New
Zealanders, this Act passes decisions over your own property to politicians,
bureaucrats, and consultants - and sends the bill to the property owners. The
RMA was drawn up by Labour, passed by National, and was enthusiastically
received.

Among a welter
of other conspicuous red tape, it is primarily these two Acts that have
hog-tied this project and threatened Whitianga's
future. The Acts require all property owners to ask permission from bureaucrats,
politicians and planners before they do anything on their own property, and
mandate that they employ expensive consultants in order to ask for that
permission - and Jeanette Fitzsimon's Select
Committee has just excitedly announced amendments to make such burdens on
property owners even more onerous.

We're under
siege by laws that tell us what we should and shouldn't be doing on our own
property and with our own lives. But who wanted these laws, and umpteen other
laws just like them that tell you in great detail how to live your life, and
set up vast bureaucracies to carry them out? Who voted for politicians to put
these laws in place, and for the bureaucrats to vigorously enforce them? Who
demanded that politicians interfere to such an extent over other people's
property, lives and endeavours? Gentle reader, the answer is: "You
did!" - and now you see the result. Anybody who
ever wanted a say over other people's lives, or who voiced a wish that
politicians should have such a say is responsible for the Waterways debacle.
Anybody who ever approved of laws requiring that productive people ask
permission before they produce is responsible. And anyone who voted for
politicians to draw up - and enthusiastically implement - these laws is
responsible.

Author Ayn
Rand once observed: "When you see that in order to produce, you need to
obtain permission from men who produce nothing … you may know that your society
is doomed." Any question that's the situation we now find ourselves in?
Any question that the laws that got us here were, and are, widely supported?
The idea that the productive must ask permission to produce from the
unproductive has been rife in this country for years, and it's been largely
unchallenged.

American
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson once observed that "a government big
enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take it all away."
And haven't they just! If you have ever favoured bigger government and greater
control by politicians; if you have ever supported laws such as these - if you
have ever voted to give politicians the power to implement laws such as these -
then the person to blame for this fiasco is you.

You can't
really blame the politicians, since they're only doing what you voted for. You
can't blame Sandra Lee, or Nick Smith, or the other politicians, since they're
only doing what they think will win votes. And you can't really blame the
consultants, since they're only carpet-bagging on laws that allow them to. No,
the only person to blame is the one looking back at you in the mirror!